Justin Haskins of The Heartland Institute says he has proof that mail-in voter fraud is even worse than we even thought.
11:43 Share

This is the sound of your ride home with dad after he caught you waiting.

Awkward isn't IT most papes contained seriously addictive levels of nike tine and disappointment .

know .

the real cost of babes brought you by the fda.

Welcome the tucker crossing pod cash, where every story is an on a story and not one of them has been massaged or influenced or censored by a corporate gatekeeper. We made a lot of these. You can find all of IT and a lot of exclusive content at tucker carson dot com.

We hope you'll check that out. Here's today's episode. It's now apparently a criminal offensive felony in this country to suggest the twenty presidential campaign was not on the level that crime appears to form the basis of one of Donald trace ending in dimension.

He's an election denier. But actually it's worth denying the legitimacy of that election because IT was not fair. Critical information was withheld from voters through censorship.

And yes, by the government. That is a fact. It's also a fact that mark sucker berg spent four hundred million dollars to control voting in various places around the country and affect the outcome.

That's not legitimate. IT was also conducted in many places through electronic voting machines, and no country should ever use electronic voting machines because fundamentally, they cannot be trusted. Why would you trust IT? But then there's the question of outright cheating.

Voter fraud was their voter fraud. What we know there was some, but was a widespread that is a hard allegation to prove. Of course, many people believe there was widespread fruit.

Well, now turns out we know for a fact there was. And in fact, IT can be proven with a poll just asked people, did you personally commit voter fraud? Well, that has just been done.

And the answer is a huge percentage of people asked in the poll admitted I committed voter fraud. It's remarkable, just in askance as a senior felt the heartland and institute. He joins us now with details. Just thanks so much for coming on. If if you go to start by giving us the results, the shocking results of this poll will go from there.

sure. So h IT was pretty straight forward. We asked people um a series of questions, the first of which is or one of the first questions was did you vote in the twenty twenty election and did you vote with an absent t ballot? And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fy.

We tell that were that we were asking, did you commit voter file? We just asked them about various behavior. So for example, we asked people, did you vote in a state where you're no longer illegal resident? That's a pretty straight forward question if you're not a permanent present of the state, you can't vote there.

Seventeen percent of people, nearly one in five, said, yes, they did do that. We asked people, did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf? That's also illegal.

You're not allowed to fill out someone else is ballot. Twenty one percent of people said yes to that question. We asked if people forced the signature of a friend or family member on their behind, whether without their permission.

We actually put that in the poll question. And seventeen percent of people said yes, do that. So all told, it's at least, and I say at least one in five male and baLance involved some kind of fraud illan activity.

But we didn't just stop there. We also asked everyone whether they voted via male ballet or not. So in person voting as well.

Do you know anyone who personally, in your personal life, a friend, a family member of quainton, someone from work, has anyone ever admitted to you that they did one of these kinds of forms of voter fraud? And ten percent and eleven percent? We asked two different questions on that, said, yes, people admitted to me that they committed voter fund.

And so when you take one in five, if we just take the one in five, male and baLance could be related to fraud. And you apply that to the numbers of the twenty twenty election, which included more male in balding than at any point in the history of the united states of america. What you end up with is potentially thirteen million fragile lent melon baLance.

And to put that in perspective, Donald trump lost the election in the popular vote by about seven million baLance. So this is a massive, massive story. If IT if this pole is reflective of reality IT is proof that the twenty twenty election results can be trusted.

I mean, my head is spinning. Um so and I am assuming I don't know if you asked I I think that would be fair to assume that most of these people who answered in the informative .

for democrats ah well, that would be fair to assume that I think based on certain things that we've learned in the past. But actually what we found was that the voter fraud was about equal between self identified republicans and democrats.

However, and this is really important to keep in mind, we don't have enough data to statistically determine that that's an a really solid accurate result because you're now digging really deep into the polling data and the sample sizes is getting smaller and smaller. But let's say that's true. And IT was equal. Let's say democrats and republicans committed fraud a equal rates. Actually, that's not the most important consideration because joe biden depended extremely heavily on male and ballots. Even if the fraud were equal between republicans and democrats, IT would hurt joe biden IT would not hurt Donald trump in terms of his ability to win elections so um assuming the fraud was equal between republicans and democrats, if you just take the poll and you apply IT to the elevator that we have about twenty election, Donald trump would win in all six of the swinging states that he lost to joe biden in twenty twenty, which means the wrong person is in the White house right now if this poll is accurate.

part of my bad memory. But how dependent was your biden on male ballots?

Well, IT varied from state to state, but generally speaking, he had twice, many male in ballots vote for him, then Donald trump, ted. And in some states like, say, pennsylvania, for example, the ratio was something like seventy percent to twenty something percent in favor of the so s in.

I mean that right there without your poll, which I think is a conversation changed forever, I hope um you have to ask why would joe biden have a natural advantage in male baLance? I mean, honestly, with what is that if fraud d is playing no part .

here yeah I mean.

does anything else explain .

that IT makes absolutely no sense. No, no. I mean, IT IT doesn't make any sense, especially in a state where the election is spt pretty close to fifty, fifty, you might see slight variations and voting behavior based on party affiliation in the past.

That's something that we've seen. But we've never seen anything like a seventy, thirty split or seventy five, twenty five split. You just don't see that.

Well, especially sense republicans are statistically more likely to have jobs and less free time than democrats mean much less mean far higher percent of the democrats than republicans are not working in taking state aid, for example. So I in presume the idea behind male baLance, people just like too busy and work at my job. I don't time to go the polling place or whatever. So right? I mean, I don't see any other logically explanation other than theft.

How is this when I see age? Age and disability is also of.

so how I mean.

republicans are more likely to be older?

This seems like a huge deal. So I mean, what's the responsible? Well.

from from the right, from conservatives, the response, at least most conservatives, the response has been, I mean, this is a game changer. This is one of the biggest stories of of the year for sure. Donald trump himself has said it's the biggest story of the year.

It's one of the biggest polls in the last twenty years, he said. And I think that that's exactly right. We should be asking questions.

We should be launching investigations that the sad thing about all of this is that the mainstream impress doesn't care. They don't even care enough to talk about IT, to review IT. They don't care because they ve got the result that they wanted, which was jill biden in the White. And anyone who dare to ask questions about that has been labelled a conspiracy theorist and interaction ist a person who doesn't deserve to have a platform of any kind. Um and you can't have a free society like that.

And now we're seeing, as we've seen with so many other stories like covered the origins of covered, for example, or whether lockdowns or a good idea, people initially who questioned the validity of the election were targeted and their lives in some cases were destroyed and the careers were destroyed. They were attacked. Um and now we're finding out that all you had to do was just ask people, you just had to do the very basics of journalism, which is to ask questions and seek the truth.

Just ask people, hey, did you do this thing? Did you do the thing you were not supposed to do? Did you vote IT in a state where you longer a permanent residents? I mean, did did you feel someone else is valid out for them? You not possible to do that? Did you do that? No one in the media establishment on the left especially, but in much of the my right as well, didn't even bother to ask the question.

We just assumed that know that couldn't possibly have happened, even though obviously the opportunity for fraud was there. And so I think the bigger story here, really in many ways, is is not that that job in this president when Donald trump should probably be presented, that's a massive story. But the biggest story is, can we trust the media at all to tell us the truth or to even bother to ask questions when an important story like this comes up? And I think the answer is, obviously, as you know, and as many of your viewers know, no, we can't. And how can you have a free society like that?

Well, of course not a free society any more. So the new york times never read about this.

Now, the new york time, the only major left wing media outlet, and I say leftwing, meaning establishment media outlet, that covered IT, was the washington post, which wrote an article very quickly without taking IT very seriously, saying, essentially, hey, you can't trust something that craze people at the heartland. And instead you do or ask us and reports. These people are far right wing extremists and election deniers, acta, and so don't listen to them. And they were the only ones, literally nobody else, as far as i'm aware on the left has talked about this.

Just it's really what I continue to think. It's one the most amazing things overheard the'd been IT no one ever asked them until you did just in haskins of hardness. Thank you for joining us.

Thanks, sucker.

Thanks for listening the suker cross in podcast if you like IT be sure to hit subscribe and labor review. And remember, we only release some of our interviews is podcast. The only place you can get all of IT, including past episodes, is tucker carlson dot com, and we hope you will.